DCT

8:25-cv-01482

Burner Buddy LLC v. Stove Innovations LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 8:25-cv-01482, M.D. Fla., 06/06/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that both Plaintiff and Defendant are Florida limited liability companies, Defendant maintains its principal place of business within the Middle District of Florida, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement in the District by marketing the accused product via its website.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s "Ceramic Stove Shield" product infringes a design patent for an ornamental cooktop cover.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns protective coverings for glass and ceramic stovetops, a consumer product category focused on preventing damage such as scratches and burns to the cooking surface.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant purchased one of Plaintiff’s products in May 2024, prior to launching its own allegedly infringing product. It further alleges that Plaintiff, via counsel, placed Defendant on notice of its infringing conduct, which has allegedly continued. These allegations may be used to support a claim for willful infringement. The complaint also includes separate counts for copyright infringement related to product photography, which are not analyzed in this report.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2023-12-17 Plaintiff Sall registers copyrights for product photographs
2024-05-XX Defendant allegedly purchases Plaintiff's Glass Cooktop Protector
2024-09-18 '930 Patent application filed (Priority Date)
2025-03-11 '930 Patent issues
2025-05-15 Date Defendant's accused product was observed for sale online
2025-06-06 Complaint filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,065,930 S, "Cooktop Cover," issued March 11, 2025.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The complaint describes the utility of the underlying article as a cover designed to protect a stovetop from "burns, food, boil over, and scratches or scuffs" (Compl. ¶15). From a design patent perspective, the challenge is to create a "new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture" ('930 Patent, p. 1).
    • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a cooktop cover as depicted in its figures ('930 Patent, Claim). The design's primary visual features are its overall rectangular configuration, four symmetrically truncated corners, and linear divisions that cross at the center, suggesting the article is foldable into quadrants ('930 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 3). A detail view emphasizes the specific geometry of the truncated corner ('930 Patent, FIG. 2), and other figures show a surface texture ('930 Patent, FIG. 4, FIG. 5).
    • Technical Importance: The complaint asserts that the '930 Patent relates to a "novel and improved cooktop cover" (Compl. ¶15).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The single claim of the patent is for "The ornamental design for a cooktop cover, as shown and described" ('930 Patent, Claim).
    • The essential visual elements of this design include:
      • A generally rectangular planform.
      • Four truncated corners, each appearing to be a single chamfer.
      • A pair of intersecting lines dividing the surface into four quadrants.
      • A surface texture, depicted with stippling in the drawings.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is the "Ceramic Stove Shield" sold by Defendant Stove Innovations, LLC (Compl. ¶32).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The accused product is a protective cover for cooktops, marketed as "an easy solution and better way to protect your stove, cooktop or range from damage" (Compl. ¶30). The complaint alleges the product is an "exact copy" of Plaintiff's Glass Cooktop Protector and is sold for $199.99, which is noted to be $50.00 cheaper than Plaintiff's product (Compl. ¶¶35, 37). The complaint includes a side-by-side visual comparison of the patent drawings and the accused product, which shows the Defendant's product being offered for sale on its website. (Compl. ¶40).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The standard for infringement of a design patent is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint alleges that the accused product is not just substantially similar, but "identical" to the patented design (Compl. ¶58).

The complaint presents a side-by-side comparison of the patented design and the accused product to support its infringement theory. This table, located at paragraph 40 of the complaint, shows Figure 4 of the '930 patent next to a screenshot of the Defendant's "Ceramic Stove Shield" product (Compl. ¶40). A similar comparison between Plaintiff's commercial embodiment and Defendant's product is also provided (Compl. ¶60).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the overall visual impression created by the accused product is substantially the same as that of the claimed design. While the complaint alleges they are identical, a court will consider the design as a whole. The analysis may involve whether the specific angles of the truncated corners and the appearance of the dividing lines in the accused product are the same as those depicted in the patent drawings.
    • Technical Questions: The primary question is one of visual, not technical, comparison. However, the effect of branding on the ordinary observer analysis may be a point of contention. The accused product is shown with a "STOVE SHIELD" logo (Compl. ¶40). The court will have to determine whether the presence of this branding is sufficient to differentiate the products in the mind of an ordinary observer, or if the underlying product design is so similar as to still cause confusion.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, there are typically no claim terms to construe in the same manner as utility patents. The "claim" is understood to be the design itself as shown in the drawings. The analysis focuses on the scope of the claimed design and its ornamental features versus any functional aspects.

  • The Term: Scope of "the ornamental design."
  • Context and Importance: The case will turn on the scope of the design patent's protection. Practitioners may focus on which specific visual features are considered part of the protected ornamental design and how broadly those features are interpreted. The determination of whether features like the dividing lines are purely ornamental or are dictated by function (e.g., for folding) could influence the scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for broader scope might contend that the patent protects the overall visual impression of a dark, quadrant-divided cooktop cover with truncated corners, and that minor variations in angle, proportion, or surface texture do not alter this fundamental impression. The claim language "as shown and described" encompasses the overall aesthetic ('930 Patent, Claim).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for a narrower scope could point to the specific details in the drawings as limitations. For instance, they might argue the design is limited to the precise corner geometry shown in the detail view of FIG. 2, the specific surface texture shown in FIG. 5, and the thin, unobtrusive appearance of the dividing lines ('930 Patent, FIG. 2, FIG. 5).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes an allegation of contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), stating Defendant contributes to the infringement of end users by selling a product that is a material part of the invention (Compl. ¶64).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint lays a foundation for willfulness by alleging Defendant had knowledge of the patented design. This is supported by allegations that Defendant purchased Plaintiff's product before launching its own (Compl. ¶33) and that Plaintiff's counsel put Defendant on notice of its infringement, which allegedly continued unabated (Compl. ¶42).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of visual identity: Under the "ordinary observer" test, is the accused "Ceramic Stove Shield," when viewed as a whole, so similar to the design claimed in the '930 Patent that a typical purchaser would be deceived? The complaint's allegation of the products being "identical" will be tested against the actual visual evidence.
  • A key evidentiary question will be the impact of alleged copying: The complaint alleges not only that the design was copied, but that Defendant purchased Plaintiff's product beforehand. The extent to which this evidence of copying influences the infringement analysis and the potential for a finding of willfulness will be a central aspect of the case.
  • A third question will relate to damages and market confusion: Given the allegations of direct competition, price undercutting, and documented instances of customer confusion (Compl. ¶¶37, 53, 54), the case may focus on whether Plaintiff can establish causation and entitlement to damages in the form of lost profits or a disgorgement of Defendant's total profits from the infringing article, a remedy unique to design patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 289.